Teach Dont Preachhttps://www.teachdontpreach.ie
A campaign for secular education
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:43:41 +0000 en-US
hourly
1 The Minister for Education should enforce the right to opt out of the NCCA Religious Education coursehttps://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/03/minister-education-opt-out/
https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/03/minister-education-opt-out/#respondTue, 19 Mar 2019 14:25:26 +0000https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/?p=5718Ruth Coppinger TD has twice recently asked the Minister for Education Joe McHugh about the right of students to opt out of the NCCA Religious Education course at second level.

]]>Ruth Coppinger TD has twice recently asked the Minister for Education Joe McHugh about the right of students to opt out of the NCCA Religious Education course at second level. The Minister has not directly addressed the right to opt out, saying merely that opting out “should not arise” because of proposed changes to the curriculum.

But parents have an absolute right to opt their children out of this course based on the Irish Constitution, whether or not other people think that doing so “should not arise”. They also have a wider right to opt out on the grounds of conscience under the Education Act, given the objectives of both the course now and the new course due to be introduced in September 2019.

None of this would be an issue if the situation was reversed, and if an NCCA course (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment) prioritised atheism the way that the current one prioritises religion. But because we grew up with the status quo, many people have a blind spot about how unreasonable it is for the State to prioritise either religion or atheism.

If an NCCA course contributed to the moral and spiritual development of all students through atheism, and developed knowledge, understanding, skills, attitudes and values to enable young people to come to an understanding of atheism and its relevance to life, relationships society and the wider world, it would be seen as indoctrinating students from religious families and disrespecting their religious convictions.

But the NCCA Religious Education course does the very opposite. Its main objectives are to contribute to the moral and spiritual development of all students through religion, and to develop knowledge, understanding, skills, attitudes and values to enable young people to come to an understanding of religion and its relevance to life, relationships society and the wider world.

The Minister for Education Joe McHugh would never fudge such an issue by telling religious families that it “should not arise” that they exercise their right to opt their children out of any curriculum course that contributed to their moral and spiritual education through atheism, and that taught their children about the relevance of atheism to their lives.

He would know instinctively that this was indoctrination. He would not ignore the Constitutional and Human Rights of religious families. He would not enable schools and teachers to coerce all students into the course.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Minister is doing to non-religious families at present. He is ignoring their right, in Section 30.2(e) of the Education Act, to opt out of any subject that is contrary to their conscience.

He is also ignoring their absolute right to opt out of the NCCA Religious Education course, which is in Article 44.2.4 of the Constitution. This right applies to any form of religious teaching (‘teagasc creideamh’ in the primary Irish text). It is not limited to classes that include faith formation, or to classes that are called ‘religious instruction’.

The Education Act refers repeatedly to the concept of ‘instruction’ and everywhere it does so, it uses the term to mean the teaching of a subject. Any religion class, whatever it is called and whatever it includes, is legally ‘religious instruction’ and you therefore have a right to opt out of it.

Last year the Department of Education reversed a directive to ETB schools to offer students who opted out of religion another subject, after lobbying by the Catholic Church, the ETBs, the TUI, and the NCCA.

But after that directive was issued, the Department confirmed to Atheist Ireland at a meeting that the Constitutional and Education Act right to opt out had not changed, and that students could still opt out of the NCCA Religious Education course. Yet now the Minister is failing to say this, instead saying that the opt-out “should not arise.”

If the State respected the inalienable rights of non-religious families under the Constitution, the issue of opting out of any religion class would not be an issue. We still have a long way to go to ensure that the practical application of our Constitutional right to opt out our children is guaranteed and enforced in all schools.

]]>https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/03/minister-education-opt-out/feed/0The State now plans to fund teachers to design and conduct Catholic faith-based retreatshttps://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/03/teachers-catholic-retreats/
https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/03/teachers-catholic-retreats/#respondMon, 18 Mar 2019 20:22:02 +0000https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/?p=5707The Minister for Education, Joe McHugh has decided to fund the training of teachers to design and conduct Catholic faith–based retreats and other faith-based programmes for adolescents. The courses are

]]>The Minister for Education, Joe McHugh has decided to fund the training of teachers to design and conduct Catholic faith–based retreats and other faith-based programmes for adolescents. The courses are due to start this year.

The Minister won’t oblige schools to provide another subject for students who opt out of religion but he has no issue with funding Teachers to train to design and conduct Catholic faith-based retreats. The cost is €1,500 per course.

Serving primary and post-primary teachers who are registered with The Teaching Council and paid by the State are eligible to apply for funding under the scheme (Teacher Refund Scheme).

An organisation called Shekinah are conducting the courses. Their website states that their ethos is rooted in scripture and the message of Jesus. St. Patrick’s College Maynooth is the certifying body for accreditation of the course. Both the diploma and certificate courses are approved by the National Framework for Qualifications.

The purpose of this course is to train participants in creative ways of bringing the Gospel message to young people. The Course Objectives are to lead the participants through a series of experiential workshops and lectures while inviting them to deepen their own spirituality and commitment to ministry in the Church.

Identify a variety of ways to nurture a living relationship with God in the lives of adolescents.

Integrate and transfer theological reflection into their work as reflective practioners.

So now we have more privilege for the Catholic Church in the education system, while the State continues to undermine the right of minorities to opt out of religion without discrimination.

Giving no practical application to the right to opt out while funding Teacher training for Catholic retreats is a reflection of the disrespect that the State has for non-religious parents and religious minorities.

]]>https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/03/teachers-catholic-retreats/feed/0The Right to Opt out of Religionhttps://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/03/the-right-to-opt-out-of-religion/
https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/03/the-right-to-opt-out-of-religion/#respondMon, 18 Mar 2019 17:00:49 +0000https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/?p=5697The right to opt out of religion under the Irish Constitution is not confined to opting out of faith formation or any belief specific teaching. The Constitution does not use

]]>The right to opt out of religion under the Irish Constitution is not confined to opting out of faith formation or any belief specific teaching.

The Constitution does not use the words faith formation in relation to the rights of parents to opt out their children (Article 44.2.4). The Education Act 1998 does not refer to faith formation in relation to parents opting out their children (Section 30-2(e)).

All subjects under the Education Act 1998 are referred to as instruction and this means that you can opt your child out of any instruction that is against your conscience, it is your Constitutional Right to do so.

This analysis is reflected in the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Report in 2011 (Religion and Education; A Human Rights perspective, page 73 para 228). They stated that:-

“This analysis creates a distinction between “religious and moral formation” which is a broad and all encompassing concept, on the one hand, and “instruction” on the other which is a much narrower formulation. It will be recalled that it is “instruction” in a subject that forms the basis of exemptions under the Education Act, and appears to be limited to formal classes in any subject, including religion. This statement could be interpreted to endorse a form of integrated curriculum, however it arguably does not actually go that far, as the decision was made in the context of second-level education, whereas the integrated curriculum applies to primary schools.”

This analysis is also reflected by Dr Conor O’Mahony in a detailed article on the right to opt out in relation to the incident in Castletroy Community College in 2015. An ETB school had refused to let a student opt out of the NCCA Religious Education course, an exam subject at Junior and Leaving Certificate level. Dr O’Mahony stated that:-

“Castletroy College initially sought to resist the request to opt-out on the basis that the subject being provided was multi-denominational rather than doctrinal instruction. Nonetheless, the view taken by the Supreme Court in the passage quoted above suggests that this distinction is irrelevant. The right to opt-out applies to the formal timetabled period of “religious instruction”, and would seem to capture whatever form that instruction might take. Thus, while the distinction between “religious instruction” and the overall school ethos or “religious education” is often pointed to as undermining the right to opt-out in a primary school context, it might ironically serve to strengthen it in a secondary school setting.”

The right to opt out refers to any formal ‘instruction’ class and is not defined to what people or groups define as faith formation or belief specific teaching. That definition is meaningless from a legal perspective.

Claiming that this Constitutional right only refers to faith formation or belief specific teaching and using that as an argument to deny parents and students their right to opt out undermines the Constitutional and Human Rights of parents and their children.

Not having clear policy available to parents on how the opt out is managed is coercion. Not offering another subject or providing supervision subjects parents to a heavy burden with a risk of undue exposure of their private life and the potential for conflict is likely to deter them from making such requests (Guide on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.)

]]>Based on Freedom of Information requests by Atheist Ireland, here are seventeen examples of State-run ETB schools paying State money to representatives of religious bodies during calendar year 2017, mostly for Catholic Youth Ministry services.

The sums paid by any one school range from €4,162 paid by Colaiste Dun Iascaigh in Cahir to the Mir Retreat Team in Mallow for Retreats, down to €90 paid by Borrisokane Community College in Tipperary to Mount Melleray for a Youth Day.

Some of the services are overtly evangelising in nature, such as the National Evangelisation Team Ministries, and the Meitheal programme actually trains older students to evangelise younger students.

It is entirely inappropriate that ETB schools, that are run by the State, and that are portrayed as the alternative to denominational schools with private religious patrons, are spending State money on these religious services.

The religious entities that we have records of payments made to during 2017 include

The nature of the projects suggests that these are not the only payments made to these entities during 2017. However, other ETB schools either did not have records for any payments, or else an ETB charged what we considered to be exorbitant fees to access the records. The entities would of course also have got payments from denominational schools.

In April and May 2017, three schools (Borris Vocational School, Colaiste Eoin Hacketstown, and Carlow Gaelcolaiste) each paid €850, a total of €2,550 to the Kildare and Leighlin Diocese for providing the Meitheal Programme. Parents contributed the same amount, meaning that the Kildare and Leighlin Diocese got paid a total of €5,100.

In May 2017, Portlaoise College paid €1,700 to the Kildare and Leighlin Diocese for providing the Meitheal Programme. There is no mention of parents contributing to this payment.

These are just four schools for which we have got invoices related to 2017. The Kildare and Leighlin Diocese website says that in June 2015, 23 schools from the Diocese participated in the programme. It says that the students are trained as Meitheal teams. They then work with their incoming 1st years from August to March.

The Kildare and Leighlin Diocese website describes its Faith Development Services as: “Rooted in Christ, Faith Development Services is a co-ordinated team directed by the Bishop of Kildare & Leighlin to encourage, resource, facilitate and support the people of the Dioceses to know, live and pray their faith.”

It says that “Meitheal is a leadership programme which operates in secondary schools in the Kildare and Leighlin diocese… The students, leaders and others educate each other through leadership, taking action, liturgy, reflection and evaluation… This course will give the students all the skills they will need to work as a Meitheal team in their school… The Meitheal programme is the start of a process, the development of young people (who) would later become leaders in their own parish and community.”

MIR Retreat Centre was paid €4,162 for Retreats

In September, October, and November 2017, Colaiste Dun Iascaigh in Cahir paid €4,162 in four invoices to the Mir Retreat Team in Mallow for Retreats. One of the four invoices is reproduced below.

MIR Retreat Centre was set up by theologian Declan Browne and his wife Annmarie, as a response to a vision they have for the Catholic Church, a vision that all people will come to know the love of Christ for them personally. Before doing this Declan spent 8 years within the order of Missionaries of the Sacred Heart MSCs.

Limerick Diocese was paid €2,875 for Anois Programme (by 2 schools)

In early 2017, two schools in Limerick (Colaiste Iosaf €1,480 and Colaiste Mhuire €1,395) paid €2,875 to the Limerick Diocesan Pastoral Centre to provide the Anois Youth Leadership Programme for 17 students.

The Limerick Diocese Youth Ministry webpage says that: “Anois is a leadership training programme run in conjunction with secondary schools for students in transition/fifth year. It has been running in the diocese for over 20 years.”

In an article in the Irish Catholic about the Anois programme, a participant says: “The days also started and ended with prayer. It was not like the prayer we are used to at Mass. Nice stories were chosen and verses read and we got to play our part… Morning prayer always finished with an action song or fun liturgical dancing to wake us up and night prayer always finished with a bed time story that had a positive message.”

Ossary Diocese was paid €1,200 for Lourdes Fund

In April 2017, Kilkenny Community School gave €1,200 to the Ossary Diocese for the Lourdes Invalid Fund.

Foundation in Christ Ministries was paid €650 for Retreats

In May 2017, Colaiste na Coiribe in Galway paid €650 to Foundation in Christ Ministries for schools retreats for 65 Transition Year students at An Tobar Nua.

The Foundation in Christ Ministries website says: “Foundation In Christ Ministries is committed to proclaiming the Good News throughout Ireland. Through outreaches such as An Tobar Nua Café, Bóthar Emmaus Bookshop, An Tobar Nua Counseling Center, the Emmaus Scripture School, and An Tobar Nua Youth Outreach, our community is cultivating hope.”

An Tobar Nua has been working with Irish secondary schools for over ten years through day retreats. The themes that it covers include Romance Without Regret, Friendship with God, The Price of Pornography, and Why Jesus?

National Evangelisation Team Ministries was paid €500 for a Retreat

In March 2017, Abbey Vocational School in Donegal paid €500 to NET Ministries for organising a Retreat titled “Steppin’ Up — Leadership”. The day was focused on Christian/Catholic values and teachings, and talks focused on Christian leadership and how it can be implemented today, how Jesus and Peter were great leaders, and an opportunity for prayer.

The NET Ministries website says that: “NET stands for National Evangelisation Teams. We are missionaries who share Jesus’ gospel message with young people. Every year, we recruit and train young adults to evangelise to over 20,000 youth in churches, schools, and parishes across Ireland.”

“NET Ministries is a Catholic organisation with Catholic missionaries. The chair of the board of directors is Retired Bishop Philip Boyce of the Raphoe Diocese. As part of our missionaries’ lifestyle, they regularly attend Mass, Eucharistic Adoration and Reconciliation. When priests are available, we facilitate the Sacrament of Reconciliation on our retreat days”

NET also offers to come to schools and give Religious Education classes for no charge. One post primary school in Louth meath ETB sais that “NET Ministries visisted our school on six occasions during 2017, taking place at lunchtime… No services were invoiced, all visits were in a voluntary capacity, and attendance was completely voluntary/optional.”

Redemptorists in Athenry were paid €440 for a Retreat

In November 2017, Galway Community College paid €440 to the Redemptorists in Athenry for a 6th year School retreat.

The Esker Redemptorists Website says that the Esker Experience offers students “the chance to discover (again?) the joy of who they truly are, as seen through the understanding eyes and wonderful welcome of Jesus Christ. ‘We cannot keep such joy to ourselves!’”

The themes offered during 6th-year retreats include “Reflection on our past, present and future, Life as a journey, Stereotypes (Male/Female), Change and Choice, Dealing with Stress, Moving On, Vocation, the Mystery/Wonder of God in all of life.”

Redemptorists in Cork were paid €364 for Scala Leadership Training

In September 2017, Colaiste Phobail Bheanntrai in Cork paid €364 to Redemptorists Cork for Leadership Training for 26 people in Scala Retreat and Conference Centre in Cork.

The Scala website says that: “Scala is home to a community of Redemptorist Missionaries, who are responsible for and support Scala’s outreach to young people. They share community life and ministry with lay co-workers in order to promote a collaborative model of church. Together with their co-workers, Redemptorists have made ministry to young people a priority.”

Knock Shrine was paid €330 for a Youth Ministry Retreat

In November 2017, Colaiste Cholmcille in Galway paid €330 to Cnoc Mhuire (Hill of Mary) for a Youth Ministry Retreat at Knock Shrine.

The Knock Shrine Youth Ministry webpage says: “The Youth Ministry team in Knock seeks to proclaim the Kingdom of God and to make known the Good News of Christ more fully through worship, service and witness. They aim to give the young people who visit Knock Shrine a personal experience of Jesus through the Sacraments. They do this by celebrating the Sacraments, preaching the Gospel, and by giving witness to the living presence of Jesus in our world.”

De La Salle Pastoral Centre was paid €285 for a Retreat

In September 2017, Borrisokane Community College in Tipperary paid €285 to the De La Salle Pastoral Centre in Castletown, Portlaoise for a Retreat.

The De La Salle Pastoral Centre website says of its Retreats: “Your faith should be your constant light and guide, and a beacon for those in your care – St. John Baptiste De La Salle.”

Archdiocese of Dublin was paid €200 for Emmanuel Concerts

In October 2017, Deansrath Community College in Clondalkin paid the Archdiocese of Dublin Liturgical Resource Centre €200 for 20 students to participate in Emmanuel 2018, a series of concerts at the Helix Centre in Dublin.

This fee for this school alone was for 20 students. The Catholic News wrote that in 2018: “Almost two and a half thousand teenagers from seventy different schools throughout Dublin will take to the stage in DCU’s Helix concert hall to sing and play Church music.”

Catholic News also wrote that: “Emmanuel is a project of the Dublin Diocesan Liturgical Resource Centre and promotes the use of Sacred Music in Secondary schools. Before getting on stage each day the students participate in faith-based workshops, reflections rehearse hymns and play music… The students take the music and prayers they learn during the Emmanuel workshops and concerts, use, and adapt them in their own prayer services and liturgies in their school communities throughout the year.”

Mount Melleray was paid €90 for a Youth Day

In March 2017, Borrisokane Community College paid €90 to Mount Melleray for a Youth Day.

Over 300 students from all over Munster and further afield attended the Youth Day. The Diocese of Cloyne website says of the Day that: “First on the programme was a warm welcome from the local bishop, Bishop Cullinan (Bishop of Waterford and Lismore)… He then introduced us to Bishop Frank Caggiano from Bridgeport in the United States who gave us a deep and thought-provoking talk for an hour or so… We listened to the story of a young person who had had a deeply religious experience… After this, we took part in Eucharistic Adoration… We returned to the church for another reflection from Bishop Caggiano. After this, we finished up with the celebration of Mass…”

Diocese of Clogher Had a Summer Camp for €180 Promoted

In March 2017, Blayney College arranged for Clogher Don Oige, a youth ministry initiative of the Catholic Diocese of Clogher, to talk to 1st and 2nd years about attending Camp Don Oige, a Faith Summer Camp that charges €180 per participant.

The Camp involves: “Faith activities based around the themes of the parables, Journey, and Mary… Twice a day young people take part in prayer… The young people grow in faith by learning about the Feast of the Assumption, vibrant youth-led prayer services and singing action songs.”

Blayney College also offered to follow up with a text from the school to parents or guardians, because: “Sometimes a parent or guardian might not hear of it through their child, but if they get the information themselves, a bit of encouragement to the student often helps.”

Killala Diocese was paid €4,410 for Room Rental

As well as payments by schools for Youth Ministry services, Moyne College in Mayo paid €4,410 to the Newman Institute in Ballina for room rental for some of its PLC courses during 2017. This building is a parochial centre in the Diocese of Killala.

ETBs From Whom We Got No Records

City of Dublin ETB told us that it estimated that it would take them 17 hours 40 minutes to comply with the request, and that they would charge us €353 to do that. Kerry ETB told us that they do not have any such records. Waterford and Wexford ETB told us that they do not have any such records.

]]>https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/03/etb-schools-pay-catholic-church/feed/0How State Schools Break The Rules – New Report from Atheist Irelandhttps://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/03/how-state-schools-break-the-rules/
https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/03/how-state-schools-break-the-rules/#commentsSat, 09 Mar 2019 21:58:13 +0000https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/?p=5616Atheist Ireland has published a major new report titled How State Schools Break The Rules. It explains how the Department of Education, the ETBs, and the NCCA are breaching Constitutional and

]]>Atheist Ireland has published a major new report titled How State Schools Break The Rules. It explains how the Department of Education, the ETBs, and the NCCA are breaching Constitutional and Human Rights and the IHREC Act in Religious Education in ETB schools.

We will be using this report as the basis of our political lobbying in the coming months. You can download the full 50-page document here. This article includes the recommendations of the report, examples of relevant law, and the executive summary.

Immediate Recommendations

1. The Minister should issue a Circular Letter informing all schools that

Under the Constitution and the Education Act and Human Rights law,

Parents have the right to opt their children out of any Religion classes,

Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

Note: The Irish language version takes legal precedence. ‘Teagasc creidimh’ means teaching religion, not teaching in accordance with the requirements of one religion. So you have the right to not attend religion classes of any kind.

Education Act 1998, Section 30.2(e)

The Minister (e) shall not require any student to attend instruction in any subject which is contrary to the conscience of the parent of the student or in the case of a student who has reached the age of 18 years, the student.

Note: Throughout the Education Act, the word ‘instruction’ is always used to mean simply the teaching of any subject on the curriculum. Again, you have the right to not attend religion classes of any kind.

Equal Status Act 2000, Section 7.2(b)

An educational establishment shall not discriminate in relation to (b) the access of any student to any course, facility or benefit provided by the establishment.

European Convention, Article 2 of Protocol 1

No person shall be denied a right to an education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

1. Executive Summary

1.1 The State is responsible for protecting Human Rights in schools. This is the case regardless of whether the schools are run directly by the State or indirectly through private bodies. The European Court made this point in the Louise O’Keeffe case. The European Court also says in its Guide on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention
on Human Rights, the Right to Education, updated in December 2018, that

“4. It cannot, however, be inferred that the State only has obligations to refrain from interference and no positive obligation to ensure respect for this right, as protected by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. The provision certainly concerns a right with a certain substance and obligations arising from it. States cannot therefore deny the right to education for the educational institutions they have chosen to set up or authorise.”

“14. Furthermore, the State is responsible for public but also private schools (Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v.Denmark). In addition, the State cannot delegate to private institutions or individuals its obligations to secure the right to education for all. Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees the right to open and run a private school, but the States do not have a positive obligation to subsidise a particular form of teaching (Verein Gemeinsam Lernen v. Austria (dec.)).… Lastly, the State has a positive obligation to protect pupils in both State and private schools from ill-treatment (O’Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], §§ 144-152).”

1.2 Most schools in Ireland are run by private religious Patron bodies. They breach fundamental Constitutional and Human Rights by discriminating on the ground of religion. Tackling this discrimination is complicated by the legal and political relationship between the State, which funds these schools, and the private religious Patron bodies that run them. Atheist Ireland will continue to challenge those breaches of the rights of parents, students, and teachers. We are optimistic that we will succeed.

1.3 Some schools in Ireland are run by State bodies called ETBs. These Education and Training Boards also breach fundamental Constitutional and Human Rights by discriminating on the ground of religion. Tackling religious discrimination in ETB schools should be more straightforward legally, because the ETBs are public bodies, and they have a Public Sector Duty to eliminate discrimination and protect the Human Rights of minorities, including the right to freedom of religion and belief. It should also be more straightforward politically, because the State established the ETBs as public bodies to manage the schools.

1.4 ETB schools break the rules at both primary and second level. At primary level the Community National Schools were set up as a State alternative to denominational schools. At second level ETB schools and colleges are seen as the alternative to denominational schools. But the Goodness Me Goodness You course in primary level Community National Schools, and the NCCA Religious Education course in second level ETB schools, are not objective, critical and pluralistic. Learning outcomes and objectives that require students to respect beliefs create a conflict between freedom of religion and freedom of expression, where none exists. The right to opt out from these courses is not respected.

1.5 The Department of Education and NCCA facilitate this behaviour. Both bodies remain heavily influenced by a culture of giving privilege to religion, and in particular to the Catholic Church, in our State education system. At the moment, some people within the Department of Education are trying to change this culture, particularly in ETB schools. Other people are trying to resist that change, both within the Department of Education and within the ETBs, the NCCA, the Catholic Church, the Religion Teachers’ Association, and the Teachers Union of Ireland.

1.6 Change is starting, and the timing is crucial to shape that change. After years of pressure, the Government is finally realising that it has to take action on religious discrimination in the education system. Some people are pushing for a Human Rights based outcome, and others are resisting by defending nod-and-wink outcomes that will hide and reinforce religious discrimination that breaches Human Rights. So action taken now can help to shape the coming change, which will be easier than trying to fix that change after it has happened.

1.7 IHREC has an important role in shaping the coming change. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission recently published its Strategy Statement 2019 –2021. Strategic priority number 2 is to influence legislation, policy and practice, with a particular focus on the Public Sector Equality and Human Rights Duty under Section 42 of the Act. One of IHREC’s four resource priorities is socio-economic rights, which includes the right to education. The arguments in this briefing document also reflects the Recommendations in the IHREC Report Religion & Education: A Human Rights Perspective.

2 Constitutional and Human Rights Principles and Cases

2.1 Human Rights Protect People, Not Beliefs. The ETBs are undermining Human Rights by creating a conflict between freedom of religion and freedom of expression. This is reflected in quotes from Ahmed Shaheed, the current UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religions and Belief, and from his predecessor Heiner Bielefeld, as well as from the Venice Commission Guidelines for Review of legislation pertaining to Religion or Belief, and the Council of Europe Factsheet on Freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs: Striking the right balance.

2.2 The Right to Respect. The State is obliged to respect the right of parents to have their children educated in accordance with their convictions be they religious or philosophical. The right to education under the European Convention does not permit a distinction to be drawn between Religious Instruction and other subjects. The General Principles of the European Court which includes the absolute ‘right to respect’ are not reflected in the ETB schools at primary or second level. The State cannot absolve itself of this responsibility, as is clear from the Louise O’Keeffe case. In addition the right to privacy is simply ignored. If parents attempt to opt out their children from Religion they are questioned by the school and are put in a position whereby they must reveal intimate details about their personal life. Teacher training colleges do not train student teachers regarding the right to privacy of parents and their children.

2.3 The United Nations on the Right to Respect. The UN, in its document International Standards (13G) on the right of parents to ensure the religious and moral education of their children, has Stated that Religious Instruction in the public school system must always go hand in hand with specific safeguards on behalf of members of religious or belief minorities. The Human Rights Committee has also emphasised that instruction in a religious context should respect the convictions of parents and guardians who do not believe in any religion.

A minimum requirement would be that members of minorities have the possibility of “opting out” of a Religious Instruction that goes against their own convictions. Moreover, the possibility of opting out should not be linked to onerous bureaucratic procedures and must never carry with it de jure or de facto penalties. Finally, wherever possible, students not participating in Religious Instruction due to their different faith should have access to alternative courses provided by the school. The decision whether or not to opt out of Religious Instruction must be left to students or their parents or guardians who are the decisive rights holders in that respect.

2.4 The Right to Opt Out. At primary and second level in ETB schools the negative aspect of freedom of religion and belief is simply ignored. There is a right under the Constitution (Article 44.2.4) to opt out of “teagasc creidimh” which translates to religious teaching. This means any teaching of religion, not just faith formation or teaching in accordance with one religion. That right is reflected in the Education Act 1998, (S.30-2(e)).

The Education Act refers to all the various subjects under the curriculum as ‘instruction’. The Venice Commission has Guidelines for legislative reviews of laws affecting religion or belief. The European Court has said that the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (Airey v Ireland 1979, p.24).

The Department of Education is not being consistent and clear in its policies and responses in relating to the NCCA religion course and the right to opt out. They will not clearly state that there is a Constitutional and Human Right to opt out of the NCCA religion course regardless of what they claim it is. Stating that withdrawal does not arise is not the same thing as saying that parents have a Constitutional right to withdraw their children.

2.5 The Castletroy College Case on Opting Out. In a significant case in 2015, Castletroy Community College (ETB school) refused to permit a student to opt out of the NCCA Religious Education class. The Board of Management eventually relented after much media attention. Since this case, and the recent Circular Letters issued by the Department of Education in 2018, the situation in relation to the right to opt out from the NCCA Religious Education course has got worse.

2.6 Supreme Court Case of 1998 re Chaplains. Dr Conor O’Mahony from University College Cork has addressed the Constitutional and Human Rights issues raised by the Castletroy case. He covers both European Court cases and the Constitutional Case of 1998 regarding Chaplains. He concludes that the right to opt-out applies to the formal timetabled period of “Religious Instruction”, and would seem to capture whatever form that instruction might take. Thus, while the distinction between “Religious Instruction” and the overall school ethos or “Religious Education” is often pointed to as undermining the right to opt-out in a primary school context, it might ironically serve to strengthen it in a secondary school setting.

He concludes that Article 44.2.4° appears stronger than the ECHR in giving a seemingly absolute right to opt-out of Religious Instruction, regardless of the character of that instruction. Moreover, it specifically uses the phrase “without attending Religious Instruction”. The use of the word “attending” (as opposed to “participating in”, or something similar) could reasonably form the basis of an argument that anything short of leaving the room fails to vindicate the right to opt-out.

2.7 European Court Principles. The IHREC Report Religion & Education: A Human Rights perspective sets out the General Principles of the European Court in relation to the rights of parents and their children. The IHREC Report goes on to outline the Human Rights of parents and their children under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

2.8 European Court Cases. The European Court in Grzelak v Poland 2010 reiterates that freedom to manifest one’s religious beliefs comprises also a negative aspect, namely the right of individuals not to be required to reveal their faith or religious beliefs and not to be compelled to assume a stance from which it may be inferred whether or not they have such beliefs. The European Court in Mansur Yalcin & Others v Turkey 2015 reiterates the positive obligation of the State, in so far as possible, to avoid a situation where pupils face a conflict between the Religious Instruction given by the school and the religious or philosophical convictions of their parents.

2.9 European Parliament. The European Parliament Directorate-General for Internal Policies has made a Recommendation in their Report on Religious practice and observance in the EU member States (2013), it says that the efficacy of both opt-out and opt-in systems requires schools to avoid exerting any direct or indirect pressure on pupils, to inform them of the possibilities they have, and to protect them from peer pressure. At the same time, public schools should do more to provide for objective, critical and pluralistic Religious Instruction. The Equal Status Act forbids discrimination in access to any course, S7–2(b).

2.10 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed concern that children are not ensured the right to effectively opt out of religious classes and access appropriate alternatives to such classes. The Committee recommends that the State party ensure accessible options for children to opt out of religious classes and access appropriate alternatives to such classes, in accordance with the needs of children of minority faith or non-faith backgrounds.

2.11 UN Human Rights Committee. The UN Human Rights Committee has expressed concern about the slow progress in increasing access to secular education through the establishment of non-denominational schools, divestment of the Patronage of schools and the phasing out of integrated religious curricula. It also asked the State about the requirement to ensure a neutral studying environment in those schools, in denominational schools, outside the confines of Religious Instruction classes that can be opted out from. The State never replied to this question.

2.12 Forum on Patronage and Pluralism. The Forum recognised that the opt out in Irish schools was not suitable on a Human Rights basis because schools did not provide another subject and children were left sitting in the class. They also stated that children had a right to receive education in ERB and ethics and the State had a responsibility to see that it was provided.

2.13 IHREC Grant to ETBI. IHREC has given a Grant to Education and Training Boards Ireland (a private organisation) to help promote the public sector duty amongst the ETBs. Despite this grant the ETBs have continued to ignore Constitutional and Human Rights and are failing to protect the Human Rights of those whom it provides services to.

3. ETB Schools at Primary Level

3.1 Community National Schools. These schools at primary level were set up in 2008. They are supposed to be an alternative to denominational schools. The ETBs have been in discussions with the Catholic Church in relation to the GMGY course and divestment. The Characteristic Spirit of the CNS is defined in their Ethos Statement. This is not an inclusive Ethos Statement that includes non-religious convictions. Learning outcomes that require children to respect and demonstrate respect for beliefs are not based on Human Rights, they undermine them. They create a conflict between freedom of religion and belief and freedom of expression.

3.2 Goodness Me Goodness You Course. This course in Community National Schools was developed by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (a public body under S.42 of the IHREC Act). It is the Patron’s (the ETBs) course. The ETBs, the NCCA and the Department of Education all claim that the GMGY course is open to all, promotes pluralism, diversity, respects all belief and is inclusive. But in reality it is multi-denominational Religious Education that is not objective, critical and pluralistic. It also puts parents in a position that they have to reveal intimate details of their personal beliefs, which is another breach of Human Rights.

3.3 Religious and Cultural Celebrations. The Guidelines for Religious and Cultural Celebrations in the Community National Schools state that: “The multi-belief nature of the CNS implies that significant belief occasions should be celebrated.” The Toledo Guiding Principles states the very opposite to the CNS policy on celebrating belief occasions. They state that teachers “need to be careful to make the distinction between teaching about the holiday, and actually celebrating the holiday, or using it as an opportunity to proselytise or otherwise impose their personal beliefs.”

3.4 GMGY Learning Outcomes. These learning outcomes are not objective, critical and pluralistic. They do not reflect the General principles of the European Court in relation to the right of all children to access education in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner. They require children to respect “codes of conduct, celebrations, beliefs, artefacts, special places, rites and ceremonies, special books and stories, special journeys, special people and symbols.” They indicate “something more and other than the mere transmission of knowledge” (Folgero v Norway). They create a conflict of allegiance between children and those parents who seek secular education for their children based on Human Rights.

3.5 The Toledo Principles on Learning Outcomes. As referred to above in paragraph 3.3, the Toledo Principles don’t endorse learning outcomes such as respecting codes of conduct, celebrations, beliefs, artefacts, special places, rites and ceremonies, special books and stories, special journeys, special people and symbols. ETB/CNS claim that they teach children about equality and Human Rights. Unfortunately, it seems that they are making those Human Rights up as they go along.

4. ETB schools at Second Level

4.1 Some ETB Schools have a Christian Ethos. In a decision by the WRC in December 2017 it was found that an ETB non designated Community College had a Christian ethos. In reality, many ETBs are not an alternative to denominational schools in Ireland but reflect a religious ethos. Religious Instruction, worship and formation are integrated throughout the school day.

4.2 Religious Education Course at Second Level. At second level the main aims of the NCCA Religious Education course are not objective, critical and pluralistic and undermine Human Rights. One of the main aims of the Religious Education course at second level is to contribute to the moral and spiritual development of all students through Religious Education. It only acknowledges the nonreligious interpretation of life. The Constitution does not say that moral education has to be delivered through Religious Education. Indeed, it says that students must receive a minimum level of Moral Eeducation, and that students can opt out from Religious Education.

ETB schools do not provide another subject for students whose parents believe that those aims do not respect their philosophical convictions, and that the course would put their children in a position where they would face a conflict of allegiance between the school and their parents’ convictions. Students are coerced into taking this course. ETB schools do not inform parents that they can opt out their children. If parents manage to opt out their children they are left sitting in the class and are not provided with another subject.

4.3 Department of Education Circular Letter 0013/2018. In 2018 the Department of Education issued two Circular Letters to ETB Second level schools to address the practicalities of students opting out of Religious Instruction based on Article 44.2.4 of the Constitution and Section 30 of the Education Act. The first Circular Letter (0013/2018) outlined new procedures to enable students who chose not to attend Religious Instruction to be given an alternative subject, something that Atheist Ireland had been lobbying for.

4.4 Department of Education Circular Letter 0062/2018. After lobbying from the Catholic Church, the ETBs, the Teachers Union of Ireland, the Religion Teachers’ Association, and the NCCA, the Department issued a second Circular Letter (0062/2018) that reversed an important part of the first Circular. This Circular stated that it is “no longer necessary” for schools to consult parents or offer their children another subject if they opt out them of the NCCA Religious Education course. Which means that schools need not consult parents, who seek secular education for their children, about opting their children out of a course which seeks to develop their moral and spiritual education through religion.

4.5 The Circular Letters Have Caused Confusion. The Department has defended the existing NCCA Religious Education syllabus, and continues to defend the new 2019 NCCA Religious Education syllabus, on the basis that both are suitable if they are not mixed with Patrons’ programmes in line with one religious denomination. But this is not the case. Neither course meets Human Rights standards.

In the first Circular Letter, the Department acknowledged that some ETB schools (in our experience, the vast majority) combine Catholic faith formation with the NCCA Religious Education course. The second Circular Letter attempts to create a distinction between Religious Instruction (in accordance with one particular religion) and Religious Instruction (in accordance with the NCCA curriculum that is labelled Religious Education).

But there is no Constitutional or legal basis to make such a distinction. The NCCA curriculum does not cease to be Religious Instruction just because it is given the title of Religious Education. In legal terms, instruction is simply the word used for teaching any subject.

If you choose to exercise your Constitutional right to not be present at Religious Instruction (in accordance with the NCCA course) you should be treated the same as if you choose to exercise your right to not be present at Religious Instruction (in accordance with one religious denomination). The second circular letter does not contradict this analysis. It merely glides over it by predicting that, because of the content of the new NCCA Religious Education curriculum in 2019, the issue of withdrawing from the NCCA Religious Education Course will not arise.

It does point out that “schools have discretion to determine if they provide the subject at all or if it is to be mandatory or optional in any particular class group or year”. The Department of Education accepts that schools can make the NCCA RE course mandatory. That is contrary to Article 44.2.4 of the Constitution and Section 30 of the Education Act. The Department of Education is actively undermining Constitutional and Human Rights.

4.6 Dail Question to Minister for Education. In March 2019 the Minister for Education answered a Dail question from Ruth Coppinger TD about whether students can opt out of the NCCA Religious Education syllabus. The Minister’s answer simply added more confusion to the issue of opting out.

Firstly, the Minister confined the answer to the NCCA Religious Education Syllabus at Leaving Certificate level. He simply did not address what happens at Junior Cycle. At time of writing this, another question is being submitted asking specifically about Junior Certificate. Secondly, the Minister’s answer says that, because it is an optional subject that students opt for at Leaving Cert level, then the question of opting out on the grounds of conscience should not arise. This phrase “should not arise” does not answer the question that was asked. The question was whether you can opt out, not whether or not it should arise that you want to opt out.

4.7 New Religious Education specification for 2019. The specification has since been published for the new NCCA Religious Education course being introduced in second level schools in September 2019. Like the existing NCCA syllabus, this new course does not meet Human Rights standards.

The new course continues to reflect the disrespect that the State has for non-religious parents and their children. It is not an Education about Religions, Beliefs and Ethics delivered in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner, but one that pursues an aim of indoctrination.

Parents who seek a secular education for their children could legitimately consider that this new course is liable to create a conflict of allegiance for their children between the school and their own values, as was found by the European Court in the case of Mansur Yalcin & Others v Turkey in 2015.

The NCCA’s Religious Education Development Group is composed of representatives of mostly religious Patron bodies, teachers unions, and the Department of Education. The Title, Aim, and Rationale of the new course all treat religious beliefs differently to non-religious beliefs. A reference to “the Divine” is a late addition to the course specifications. It was not in the draft specification published in June of last year.

The new course has 31 learning outcomes, which apply to all students. Of the 31 learning outcomes in the course: 18 are related solely to religious world views; 12 are related to a combination of religious and non-religious world views; and only 1 is related solely to non-religious world views.

5. Other Related Issues

5.1 Impact of Circular Letters on Denominational Schools. These Circular Letters issued by the Department of Education also undermine the right of parents to opt their children out of religion classes in denominational schools. Denominational schools do not have two different religion classes; one the NCCA Religion course, and the other Catholic or Protestant Religious Education. That would simply not fit into the busy schedule for any school. What many of them are doing is misusing the Circular Letters to make religion classes mandatory by claiming that they are suitable for all religions and none.

5.2 Teacher Training at DCU / Mater Dei. Student Religious Education Teachers in DCU take specific modules to enable them to teach in Catholic and Protestant denominational schools at second level. The Incorporation Agreement between the Mater Dei Institute and DCU clearly states that the distinctive identity and values of teacher education in Roman Catholic and Church of Ireland are maintained on an ongoing basis. The Deeds of Trust for ETB Community Schools and the Model Agreement for designated Community Colleges as well as Circular Letter 79 give the relevant religious authority a veto over the hiring of religion teachers and chaplains in ETB schools.

5.3 The Right to Objective Sex Education. In January 2019 the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Skills published a Report on Relationship and Sexuality Education. One of the Recommendations was that the Education Act be amended or at least reviewed so that ethos can no longer be used as a barrier to the effective, objective and factual teaching of the RSE and SPHE curriculum to which every student is entitled. Some ETB schools and colleges deliver Sex Education according to their religious ethos which in most case reflects the teachings of the Catholic Church. The reason for this is that some ETB schools and colleges have a religious ethos. If ETB schools and colleges fulfilled their public sector duty under Section 42 of the IHREC Act, then all of their schools would deliver sex education in an objective manner.

The Full Report: How State Schools Break The Rules

This executive summary is numbered in accordance with the sections of the main body of the document. So, for further details on any aspect of the summary, go to the relevant section number in the body of the document. You can download the full 50-page document here.

]]>https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/03/how-state-schools-break-the-rules/feed/1The Constitutional right to opt out of the State religion coursehttps://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/03/right-to-opt-out/
https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/03/right-to-opt-out/#respondSun, 03 Mar 2019 15:14:03 +0000https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/?p=5610ETB schools are wrongly telling students that they cannot opt out of the State religious education course at second level, and are wrongly trying to justify that by referring to

]]>ETB schools are wrongly telling students that they cannot opt out of the State religious education course at second level, and are wrongly trying to justify that by referring to a misleading clarification of a directive from the Department of Education.

In February last year the Department told ETB schools that they had to ask parents if their children wanted to attend religious instruction classes, and that they must give an alternative subject to students who do not choose to do religion.

This directive was based on the rights of parents and students in Article 44.2.4 of the Constitution, and Section 30 of the Education Act 1998. Atheist Ireland had been lobbying for this development for years.

After counter-lobbying by the Catholic Church, the TUI, and the NCCA, the Department revised that directive in October. They said that this new rule only applies to religious instruction classes that are “in line with the requirements of any one religious denomination”.

The Department said that the State course in religion is intended for students of all faith backgrounds and none, that this “ensures that withdrawal does not arise” and that the directive to ask parents about their preferences “is no longer necessary”.

So ETB schools are wrong to tell students that they cannot opt out of the State religion course.

If any school, ETB or otherwise, tries to force a student into studying the NCCA course in religious education, parents and students should tell that school that it is unconstitutional, and contrary to the Education Act, for any school to force students into any course that is contrary to their conscience.

Atheist Ireland will this week publish a comprehensive report on how ETB schools breach the Constitutional and human rights of students and parents in religion classes.

]]>https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/03/right-to-opt-out/feed/0New Junior Cycle Religious Education course still breaches constitutional and human rightshttps://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/02/new-junior-cycle-religious-education-course/
https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/02/new-junior-cycle-religious-education-course/#respondMon, 18 Feb 2019 03:18:54 +0000https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/?p=5551The new specification for the Junior Cycle Religious Education curriculum, due to be introduced in schools in September 2019, disrespects the rights of parents who seek secular education for their children

]]>The new specification for the Junior Cycle Religious Education curriculum, due to be introduced in schools in September 2019, disrespects the rights of parents who seek secular education for their children based on human rights.

The new course reflects the disrespect that the State has for non-religious parents and their children. It is not an Education about Religions, Beliefs and Ethics delivered in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner, but one that pursues an aim of indoctrination.

Parents who seek secular education for their children could legitimately consider that this course is liable to create a conflict of allegiance for their children between the school and their own values, as was found by the European Court in the case of Mansur Yalcin & Others v Turkey in 2015.

It is important to note that this is not a curriculum for the private religious patrons of schools. This new course is part of the State curriculum, devised by the NCCA, and is supposed to be for all students regardless of the school they are in.

Contents

The NCCA Religious Education Development Group

The Title of the Course

The Aim of the Course

The Rationale of the Course

The Learning Outcomes of the Course

The Course must be in Conformity with Parents’ Convictions

The Course Disrespects the Rights of Parents

Human Rights Protect People, Not their Beliefs

The Rights of Non-Religious Parents in Irish Schools

The Right to Opt out of Religious Teaching

Students who Opt Out should be given a Different Subject

Conclusion

1. The NCCA Religious Education Development Group

The NCCA’s Religious Education Development Group is composed of representatives of mostly religious patron bodies, teachers unions, and the Department of Education.

These include the Council for Catechetics of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference, Church of Ireland Board of Education, Methodist Board of Education, Joint Managerial Body of voluntary schools (mostly Catholic), ETBI (whose schools have a religious influence), Association of Community and Comprehensive Schools, Religion Teachers’ Association of Ireland, Department of Education, State Examinations Commission, TUI and ASTI.

The Group is chaired by Fr. Gareth Byrne, the Director and Head of Religious Education at the Mater Dei Centre for Catholic Education at DCU. He is also a member of the National Faith Development Team of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference, of the Episcopal Council for Pastoral Renewal and Adult Faith Development, of the Episcopal Council for Catechetics and of the National Training Authority for the Dublin Diocesan Board of Formation in Ministry.

2. The title of the Course

The problems begin with the title of the course. By describing the course as a ‘Religious Education’ course, the content is not framed in an inclusive way in accordance with human rights principles.

The State curriculum should teach about religions and beliefs, in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner, and this course should be renamed ‘Education about Religions and Beliefs” or perhaps ‘Education about Religions, Beliefs, and Ethics’.

The NCCA has already tried to develop such a course for primary level, but it was blocked by the Catholic Bishops who are patrons of most Irish schools. The Catholic Church believes that you cannot teach objectively about religion, and the Catholic Bishops have told the NCCA that a pluralist approach to teaching religion goes against the philosophical basis of Catholic religious education.

3. The Aim of the Course

The aim of the new Religious Education course is to:

“develop knowledge, understanding, skills, attitudes and values to enable young people to come to an understanding of religion and its relevance to life, relationships, society and the wider world. It aims to develop the students’ ability to examine questions of meaning, purpose and relationships, to help students understand, respect and appreciate people’s expression of beliefs, and to facilitate dialogue and reflection on the diversity of beliefs and values that inform responsible decision-making and ways of living.”

Can you imagine the reaction if any State curriculum had, as the first sentence of its aim, to “enable young people to come to an understanding of atheism and it’s relevance to life, relationships, society and the wider world”?

If such an aim was ever proposed, the Minister for Education Joe McHugh would instinctively understand that this would be indoctrination, and would not respect the right of religious parents to ensure that the teaching of their children is in conformity with their convictions.

We would be hearing comments from various religious bodies and organisations about the totalitarian State undermining the rights of religious parents and their children. They would ask why is the State telling children that atheism is more relevant than religion to life, relationships, society and the wider world?

But when it comes to respecting the right of non-religious parents to ensure that the teaching of their children is in conformity with their convictions, the State has a blind spot. That blind spot is a reflection of Catholic church teaching on the rights of parents and the right to freedom of religion and belief.

4. The Rationale of the Course

The Rationale of the course treats religious beliefs differently to non-religious beliefs. It states that:

“Religious Education has a critical role to play in the curriculum in providing opportunities for them to consider the variety of religious beliefs found in Ireland and elsewhere, become aware of different understandings of the Divine, and examine other interpretations of life.”

This treats religious and nonreligious beliefs differently in two ways.

Firstly, the course seeks to enable students to become aware of different understandings of “the Divine,” but it doesn’t seek to enable students to become aware of different understandings of atheism, or secularism, or any non-religious philosophical conviction.

This reference to “the Divine” is a late addition to the course specifications. It wasn’t in the draft specification published in June of last year. It has been added in since. It defines “the Divine” as the various ways in which the world’s five major religions refer to God/gods/the Transcendent. The major religions are defined as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.

Secondly, the course wants students to “consider” religious beliefs while “examining” other interpretations of life. It defines “considering” as reflecting upon the significance of something, and “examining” as enquiring into or looking closely at something. Whichever of these criteria they use, surely they should apply the same criteria to both religious and nonreligious beliefs?

The Rationale also states that the course:

“encourages respect and understanding of different beliefs, perspectives and ways of living, including both the religious and non-religious response to human experience.”

This conflates two different things: students should respect other people’s right to hold different beliefs, but they should not be encouraged to respect the beliefs themselves. Crossing that line breaches the human right to freedom of religion and belief.

We describe later in this article the reasons why this breaches human rights, as described by the former UN Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, Heiner Bielefeld.

5. The Learning Outcomes of the Course

The new course has 31 learning outcomes, which apply to all students. Learning outcomes are statements that describe what knowledge, understanding, skills, attitudes and values students should be able to demonstrate having studied Religious Education.

One example of a learning outcome is:

2.4 research and present the understanding of the Divine found in two major world religions drawing upon their origins in sacred texts and/or other sources of authority.

Of the 31 learning outcomes in the course:

18 are related solely to religious world views.

12 are related to a combination of religious and non-religious world views.

Only 1 is related solely to non-religious world views.

The only learning outcome that is related solely to non-religious worldviews comes immediately after a similar learning outcome about religious worldviews:

1.6 examine and appreciate how people give expression to religious belief in religious rituals, in
formal places of worship and other sacred spaces

1.7 discuss the significance of non-religious rituals/celebrations for people’s lives.

You will notice that students have to “examine and appreciate” the religious learning outcome, while they only have to “discuss the significance” of the non-religious one.

Looking at the 12 learning outcomes that are related to a combination of religious and non-religious world views, the following example is phrased in a balanced way:

2.2 consider responses from one major world religion and from a non-religious world view to some big questions about the meaning of life.

It would have been so simple to phrase all of the learning outcomes in this way, so that each learning outcome would cover both religious and non-religious world views. Instead, nearly 60% of the learning outcomes are related solely to religious worldviews, preventing the course from being objective and inclusive.

6. The Course must be in Conformity with Parents’ Convictions

The Constitution obliges the State to respect the right of parents to ensure that their children’s education is in conformity with their convictions. That right is not confined to religious parents. Human Rights law also obliges the State to respect the rights of all parents in the education system, be they religious or philosophical.

The state must take sufficient care that the curriculum is objective, critical and pluralistic in order to achieve pluralism. The right to respect is an absolute right and not to be balanced against the rights of others. The United Nations uses the terms, neutral and objective.

The UN General Comment on the Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief states that:

“6. The Committee is of the view that article 18.4 permits public school instruction in subjects such as the general history of religions and ethics if it is given in a neutral and objective way. The liberty of parents or legal guardians to ensure that their children receive a religious and moral education in conformity with their own convictions, set forth in article 18.4, is related to the guarantees of the freedom to teach a religion or belief stated in article 18.1. The Committee notes that public education that includes instruction in a particular religion or belief is inconsistent with article 18.4 unless provision is made for non-discriminatory exemptions or alternatives that would accommodate the wishes of parents and guardians.”

The new Religious Education course is not confined to the general history of religions and ethics given in a neutral and objective way.

7. The Course Disrespects the Rights of Parents

Parents who seek secular education for their children could legitimately consider that this course is liable to create a conflict of allegiance for their children between the school and their own values, as was found by the European Court in the case of Mansur Yalcin & Others v Turkey in 2015.

In Ireland, parents who want a secular education have taken to the streets in the past few years campaigning against various Constitutional bans, legislation and policy that are based on Catholic Church teaching and their understanding of how ‘the Divine’ dictates they should live their lives.

These parents believe that there should be a complete separation of Church and State and that those very Constitutional issues, laws, and policy, that are based on various religious understandings of the world, undermine the dignity of the human person.

These parents teach their children to challenge those beliefs, and not to tolerate laws and policies that reflect religious beliefs that undermine the dignity of the human person.

Now the State is seeking to enable their children to come to an understanding of religion and its relevance to life, relationships, society and the wider world, and to respect beliefs when their parents are campaigning against and challenging those very beliefs on conscientious grounds.

8. Human Rights Protect People, Not their Beliefs

The Human Right to Freedom of Religion protects people, not their beliefs. The reason for this is that many beliefs undermine human dignity and the rights of others. The former UN Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, Heiner Bielefeld has stated that:

“Rights holders are human beings who may exercise these freedoms as individuals and in community with others. While this may sound like a truism in the context of human rights in general, the right to freedom of religion or belief has sometimes been misperceived as protecting religions or belief systems in themselves.

This misperception is the source of much confusion, as it obfuscates the nature of freedom of religion or belief as an empowering right. Ignoring that may lead to the wrong assumption of an antagonism between freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression.

Thus, it may warrant highlighting that freedom of religion or belief protects believers rather than religions or beliefs.”

“the amalgamation of freedom of religion or belief with political projects of ‘interreligious harmony’ may marginalize the human rights of dissenters, critics or other people who might disturb a superficial harmony; and the specific features of non-discrimination can get lost out of sight when mixed with vague concepts of general humanitarian values”

9. The Rights of Non-Religious Parents in Irish Schools

The UN and Council of Europe have raised concern about the rights of non-religious parents and their children in the Irish education system.

That concern is because the State absolves itself of its responsibility to educate, and delegates that to mostly private religious bodies who have disregarded (with the help of discriminatory laws and policies) the rights of non-religious parents and their children.

The State is now seeking to enable children from non-religious families to respect the ‘beliefs’ that their parents object to on conscientious grounds, and to develop values that enable young people to come to an understanding of religion and its relevance to life, relationships, society and the wider world.

That is an ideological position that is not based on the right to freedom of religion and belief or the right to education.

Why has the State not even considered that the Religious Education course in question is liable to create a conflict of allegiance for children (whose parents seek secular education for them), between their school and the values of their family?

10. The Right to Opt out of Religious Teaching

Some advocates of religious influence in schools are trying to create an artificial distinction between “Religious Instruction” which they say involves faith formation, and “Religious Education” which they say is more neutral.

They suggest that if a course is called “Religious Education” then schools can make the course compulsory, not inform students of the right to opt out, and not offer a different subject to students who exercise their right to opt out.

But there is no legal distinction between the concepts of “Religious Instruction” and “Religious Education.”

There is a right under the Constitution (Article 44.2.4) to opt out of “teagasc creidimh” which translates to teaching of religion, not to faith formation. The Irish version of the Constitution takes precedence over the English translation.

That Constitutional right is reflected in the Education Act 1998, (s.30-2(e)). The Education Act 1998 refers to the teaching of all the various subjects under the curriculum as ‘instruction’.

The right to opt out of Religious Teaching is given no practical application in Irish schools. The reason for this is that the state supports religions in their mission to evangelise.

Any subject that aims to develop knowledge, understanding, skills, attitudes and values to enable young people to come to an understanding of religion and its relevance to life, relationships, society and the wider world is religious teaching.

Trying to redefine the right to opt out is an attempt to undermine the Constitutional rights of parents under Article 42.1 and Article 44.2.4 as well as their human rights. Just because the Religious Education course at second level is an exam subject, does not mean it is not Religious Teaching where the right to opt out applies.

11. Students who Opt Out should be given a Different Subject

In their Circular Letter (0062/2018 – clarification in respect of Section 5 of Circular 0013/2018 in relation to the NCCA Religious Education syllabus and religious instruction) the Department of Education state that it is “no longer necessary” for schools to consult parents or offer their children another subject with regard to the Religious Education Course.

The European Parliament – Directorate-General for Internal Policies – Policy Department has made a Recommendation in their Report on Religious practice and observance in the EU member states (2013), they stated that:

12.The ECtHR principle of non-indoctrination in the organization of public religious education appears to be a suitable tool to make compatible state religious traditions with the rights of pupils and parents. However, to assure state religious neutrality and the freedom of religion of non-believers, much attention should be paid to the opt-out systems in those EU states with compulsory religious education. Opt-in systems too call for close supervision in states with strong religious settings. The efficacy of both systems requires schools to avoid exerting any direct or indirect pressure on pupils, to inform them of the possibilities they have, and to protect them from peer pressure. At the same time, public schools should do more to provide for objective, critical and pluralistic religious instruction.”

Not allowing students to pick another subject if they opt out of Religious Instruction is coercion. Its purpose is to put pressure on all students to take the religion class.

12. Conclusion

The Irish State does not provide objective, critical, and pluralistic religious instruction. It pursues an aim of indoctrination, by not respecting the right of parents to ensure that their children’s education is in conformity with their convictions. It disregards its duty to remain neutral with regard to religions and beliefs.

Providing another subject for students whose parents seek an opt out for them on the grounds of conscience would have fulfilled the human rights obligations of the State, and ensured respect for the rights of those parents who seek secular education based on human rights.

]]>https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/02/new-junior-cycle-religious-education-course/feed/0Catholic ethos schools integrate the myth of Adam and Eve with the science of evolutionary biologyhttps://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/01/catholic-ethos-schools-integrate-the-myth-of-adam-and-eve-with-the-science-of-evolutionary-biology/
https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/01/catholic-ethos-schools-integrate-the-myth-of-adam-and-eve-with-the-science-of-evolutionary-biology/#commentsWed, 30 Jan 2019 21:11:28 +0000https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/?p=5503While the Roman Catholic Church is broadly supportive of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, their formal doctrine continues to insist on “human exceptionalism”. That is, the Church requires

]]>While the Roman Catholic Church is broadly supportive of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, their formal doctrine continues to insist on “human exceptionalism”. That is, the Church requires that some dogmatic qualifications are applied to the science, when it comes to human evolution. The Catholic Church teaches that humans evolved from a single couple, Adam and Eve, rather than a broad population of ancestors.

“Religious Education will integrate with the following strands of the Science Curriculum … Plants and animals: exploring God’s creation.”

The learning outcomes in the GMGY course in Community National Schools require children to respect this ‘belief’ notwithstanding the fact that it is not scientifically sound and many parents think that it is nonsense.

“uphold, and be accountable to the patron for so upholding, the characteristic spirit of the school”.

This legal requirement to uphold the Characteristic spirit is defined by the patron of the school. In the case of Catholic schools, we know what this means. Where Catholic doctrine on creation conflicts with contemporary science (for example, Humani Generis cannot possibly be reconciled with contemporary evolutionary biology) then dogma wins.

The contemporary Roman Catholic teaching on Evolution was described in 1950, within a Papal Encyclical called Humani Generis. In this document, Pope Pius XII defined the Church position as follows:

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”

In this paragraph, Pope Pius XII describes both where the Roman Catholic Church insists that the science is wrong and also describes why the Church requires that this must be the case. The reason why the Church insists that the science is wrong, is in order to preserve the doctrine of Original Sin. This doctrine requires that all humans throughout history, were directly descended from an actual historical character called Adam, who was responsible for The Fall of Man as an actual historic event.

The area where the Roman Catholic Church insists that contemporary science is wrong, is what Pope Pius XII refers to as “polygenism”. That is, the Roman Catholic Church cannot abide the proposition that humans evolved from a broad population of ancestors, rather than from a single couple, Adam and Eve.

Unfortunately for the Church, the consensus among contemporary evolutionary biologists in this area is independently supported by overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines. These include the study of genetic diversity, archaeology, anthropology, evolutionary anatomy and population genetics.

Consequently, whichever human male throughout history the Church may call Adam, there were certainly other humans who lived after Adam who were not directly descended from him. In other words, the human exceptionalism described in Humani Generis cannot be reconciled with contemporary evolutionary biology.

In the Irish Education system, objective scientific truths must be made bend into whatever shape a particular religious ethos requires. Our education system would be better off if science was not diluted by religious dogma.

]]>Atheist Ireland welcomes the Oireachtas Education Committee report on Objective Sex Education. The report has recommended, as Atheist Ireland asked it to do, that the law must be changed to remove the role of ethos as a barrier to the objective and factual delivery of sex education curriculums. It has set a target date of the end of the year for this to happen.

This is the first time that an Oireachtas Committee has recognised that students have a right to an objective education for the State curriculum, even in denominational schools, outside of the patron’s religion or values programmes. All students have a human right to have the state curriculum delivered in an objective, critical, and pluralistic manner.

The Committee members present at today’s launch all emphasised the importance of this right. They were chairperson Fiona O’Loughlin TD of Fianna Fail, Thomas Byrne TD Fianna Fail education spokesperson, Jan O’Sullivan TD of the Labour Party, Catherine Martin TD of the Green Party, and Senator Robbie Gallagher of Fianna Fail. Independent Senator Lynn Ruane sent her apologies for not being there.

Paul Murphy TD of Solidarity was also in attendance. This report strengthens the case for this key element of Solidarity’s Objective Sex Education Bill. That Bill is currently stalled in the Oireachtas, awaiting a procedural decision by the Government to allow it to move on to the next stage after being passed in the Dail.

The Committee has recommended that the Education Act 1998 be amended or at least reviewed, so that ethos can no longer be used as a barrier to the effective, objective and factual teaching of the RSE and SPHE curriculum to which every student is entitled.

The Committee has also recommended that the necessary legislative amendments required to remove the role of ethos as a barrier to the objective and factual delivery of the RSE and SPHE curriculums be made as soon as possible and at the latest by the end of 2019.

The Committee took note of two Circular letters from the Department. Circular 0023/20109 provides that ‘programmes which are based on information alone are very limited in the learning outcomes they can achieve and can in fact be counter productive in influencing values, attitudes and behaviour’.

Circular 0037/201010 on the other hand recognises the obligation of schools to have an RSE programme that is ‘objective, based on contemporary scientific evidence and does not involve censoring, withholding or intentionally misrepresenting information, for example as regards contraception or different means on maintaining sexual and reproductive health’.

The Committee was advised that the Education Act 1998 will need to be amended because the NCCA has no legal power over how the curriculum is delivered by school patron bodies with their own religious ethos. Atheist Ireland made this point in our written submission, and also when Jane Donnelly addressed the Committee on our behalf.

The Committee recommended that clarity is given by the DES regarding how schools and colleges, under religious patronage, should implement a comprehensive RSE programme so that all children and young people are treated equally. The Committee also recommended that the Education Act 1998 be reviewed so that ethos can no longer be used as a barrier to the effective teaching of the RSE and SPHE curriculum.

This is the second time that an Oireachtas Education Committee has accepted Atheist Ireland’s arguments against the use of religious ethos in Irish schools. In 2014 the Committee concluded that multiple patronage and ethos as a basis for policy can lead to segregation and inequality in the education system.

]]>https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/01/report-objective-sex-education/feed/0ETBI said CNS schools were “playing a very significant role in realising Catholic vision for religious education”https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/01/cns-schools-catholic-vision/
https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2019/01/cns-schools-catholic-vision/#commentsSun, 27 Jan 2019 21:57:12 +0000https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/?p=5489An internal letter from the ETBI, in advance of a meeting with the Catholic Bishops in 2017, shows the extent to which the ETBI wanted to facilitate Catholic Church teaching

]]>An internal letter from the ETBI, in advance of a meeting with the Catholic Bishops in 2017, shows the extent to which the ETBI wanted to facilitate Catholic Church teaching in State-run Community National Schools. Atheist Ireland obtained the letter under the Freedom of Information Act.

The letter refers to meetings ten years earlier in 2008, between the Catholic Bishops, the Department of Education, and the then Dublin VEC. It reminds those attending the upcoming meetings that many of the people involved from the Church are still involved today and have a very clear understanding of what was agreed at the time.

It says that it is important that ETBI has a clear sense of the Catholic Bishops’ vision for religious education, as outlined in the Catholic policy document ‘Share the Good News’, and it says that the ETBI should be confident that CNS schools are currently playing a very significant role in realising this vision.

Since then CNS schools have moved what they describe as faith formation to outside the school day, but some of the learning outcomes of the CNS religious education course, Goodness Me Goodness You, have been changed from understanding religious codes of conduct to respecting them.

This internal letter shows the mindset of the people running the ETBI in 2017, and how close and longstanding is the relationship between the ETBs and the Catholic Church. This mindset and relationship is still evident in the lobby by the ETBs and the Catholic Church against last year’s Circular Letter that would have given an alternative timetabled subject to students who opted out of any religion classes in ETB schools.

Note: This article was updated in March 2019, as the original headline created the impression that the quote from the letter was in the present tense.